Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged U.S. war criminals

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 17:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged U.S. war criminals now Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials

Hopelessly POV, no way to make an encyclopedic NPOV article out of this. Also qualifies as "original research", since this person seems to be listing names on his own authority. -- Curps 08:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at all the REFERENCES in the article, at least one per every individual listed. That's more that can be said about Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century, an article drawing on the work of a couple of rightwing libertarian ideologies like Rummel. GSherman 10:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you added all these references just now, after this page was already listed here. In any case, the NPOV part remains. -- Curps 10:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "alleged" in the title don't you understand? We can report what other people are saying, and readers can decide for themselves. You apparently just want to report the views that you support. GSherman 10:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Using bold typeface is the equivalent of shouting on the internet and is considered impolite. Please avoid it in the future. If you have any other questions please refer to Wikiquette. -DaveTheRed

• Keep If you are not aware of the scores of scholars and human rights activists who accuse each of these U.S. officials of war crimes, then you are too ignorant to work on it. (I will add them, but this article for now, just like every other article on this site according to all the disclaimers that I have been reading, is a work in progress.) It is not "original research." Actually, I know that "original research" is not the real motive to get rid this article. I'm sure that this article (long overdue) will come under attack by many users who are the moral equivalent to Holocaust deniers. GSherman 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be a new user. You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for polemical essays. -- Curps 08:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you should read the NPOV policy. I am merely reporting what some human rights activists and scholars have written on a number of important U.S. figures; you are violating the NPOV policy by attempting to cover up their allegations (notice that the article deals with alleged war criminals). GSherman 09:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteThis article lists every U.S. President since Kennedy, minus Carter. Wikipedia is not the place for an POV indictment against U.S. foreign policy. DaveTheRed 09:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Without wishing to actually support this article, no it doesn't. It lists people who served in the administrations of those Presidents, but only Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton are mentioned themselves. TSP 09:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant to say "presidential administration", not "president." Lazy grammar on my part. But my point still rings true. DaveTheRed
• Delete. This page is irredeemably POV. Morwen - Talk 09:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can just about believe that this COULD be NPOV, if exact details of who had accused that person of war crimes were included (and limited to formal sources). If it were, though, it would probably live somewhere like US Citizens accused of war crimes - or be incorporated into List of war crimes (which itself has issues with encyclopaedicness at the moment). On this page, I have to say delete. TSP 09:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Hopelessly POV. Such allegations could be (and probably are) mentioned on the individual pages of the "accused" if there's any basis for it. See Henry Kissinger for example Preisler 10:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't like US foreign policy much, but this page is heavily POV and not really useful --- Chris 73 Talk 10:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The same user has now created Category:Alleged U.S. war criminals, which I have listed in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. -- Curps 10:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but include details of who accuses whom of what. Burschik 11:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. Stereotek 11:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A valid topic and relatively well-referenced. JMaxwell 11:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Heavy POV content. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Only keep if rewritten utterly. Only accusations made by notable international groups (e.g. Amnesty International, Reporters Sans Frontières, Human Rights Watch, Center for Constitutional Rights) should be listed, and the group making the accusation explicitly stated. Any group we don't have an article for doesn't count. Links to articles from the accusing organisation required, rather than second hand website reports. Average Earthman 13:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't particularly care for an article that starts with 'alleged'. This one is too propagandistic imho. Delete. Radiant! 13:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov and unlikely to become npov. Wincoote 14:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)$
• One-way ticket to the trash can Inherently subjective. Phils 15:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is another list, and has all the usual problems of such, centering on the problem that the criterion for inclusion on the list is unclear and not agreed, and even when the criterion is relatively clear, it is still often a POV whether something should be listed or not. Unlike regular articles, where facts and arguments related to the matter can be presented, lists are binary: something is either on the list or it is not. Of necessity, if there is a dispute over inclusion, one POV gets to win, since an item can't be both on a particular list and not on it at the same time. That means that many lists inherently violate NPOV. People reacting negatively to this list might reconsider their support for a substantial number of the list articles. --BM 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite and rename with sledgehammer --- If this were a "Perspectives on U.S. military actions, 20th Century-Present" article, it might stand a chance of being NPOV. Right now, even the title is slanted. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - should be speedy deleted as libel (note that putting "alleged" in front of an accusation has no legal effect as far as libel law is concerned), jguk 19:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agenda-driven and potentially libelous — RJH 19:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relavent info onto individual pages where appropriate. The article by itself is irredeemably POV. --InShaneee 20:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 22:35, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, or any rational literature. 22:56, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Comment by Trampled. --InShaneee 16:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created to further a POV. Szyslak 03:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Peace Movement and link to that section from War Crimes, noting the use of labelling individuals as war criminals as part of protests against war. Stirling Newberry 04:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with International criminal court if in fact indictments exist as examples of unheard potential cases, otherwise this needs a top-to-bottom reworking and rewrite. As it stands now, the article/list is POV. One of the first things I was taught in journalism school is that the word "alleged" is not a protection against libel, and should not be used to further an agenda. My biggest problem is the article itself reads like a criminal indictment document which renders it completely POV because there will be people wanting to argue the opposite. 23skidoo 04:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean Up, Expand but rename to something more obective, like "U.S. officials accused of war crimes," and identify/document accusers and accusations in greater detail. --BD2412 05:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/retitle or merge preferable Just make sure that none of these officials are indicted by any legitimate authority (a disclaimer that ought to be noted in the intro) but rather accused of a host of things by advocacy groups. Note that we have similar pages; they just are not as controversial on Wiki since they deal with regimes that are not friendly with the U.S. [1] 172 06:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly rewrite, but shouldn't be deleted simply because most people don't agree. Should be expanded on though.
  • Note: comment by 129.97.234.46. --InShaneee 16:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clarify - I agree with BD2412's comments. - Mustafaa 22:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename, Clean Up, Expand, just as BD2412 argued above. --Zero 22:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with BD2412 too. James F. (talk) 23:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. Only people who have been accused by actual legal bodies ought to be included in lists of war criminals. "People who are popularly (falsely or otherwise) believed to be X" isn't encyclopedic. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The allegations can and should be discussed in the articles of the respective individuals. Those articles will be debated aggressively enough to make sure that the allegations are credible, verifiable and notable. This "list of" article is taking a hodgepodge of essentially unrelated events and presenting them in a way designed to imply a correlation. I think this represents an insolvable problem for the article. Delete. (Since GSherman is essentially the sole contributor to the article so far, GFDL can be preserved by attributing the merged comments in the edit summaries.) Rossami (talk) 05:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously POV. Grue 13:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only those allegations directed by notable, credible sources. Currently, among other outstanding issues, the article's emphasis needs to be placed on the responses to the allegations by those accused. The article is inherently one-sided unless the reader is provided with ... both sides. El_C 11:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential but needs work. --Bucephalus 15:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irreparably POV. There is no way this is ever going to be anything other than anti-American propaganda. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • • Keep, but article should not be merely a list of the accused, with only blind external links to the accusers. In each case, it is relevant who is bringing the accusation. This could be an NPOV article if it were done that way. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV. Rhobite 01:44, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve along the lines suggested by BD2412, El_C, and Jmabel. Although past VfD votes don't establish binding precedents, I note that List of Japanese War Atrocities survived VfD even without the "alleged" in the title. In voting to delete that one (see discussion), I said, "NPOV permits citation of attributed charges of atrocities . . . ." The article we're now voting on takes that approach. JamesMLane 05:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hopelessly POV. --BenWilson 01:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly not neutral and unlikely that it ever can be. There is room for Allegations of war crimes by the United States, but this should probably be written from scratch, and should make a clear distinction between war and war crimes, which this article does not.--Pharos 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would do much to counter systemic bias to have a page detailing US war crimes as well as Japanese, German etc. Just because no American has been prosecuted for war crimes doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously List of notable schools in United States shows that everything American should be out of Wikipedia (see also WP:VFU). Grue 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.